Sally Mohamed V. Syed Mohamed

1962 present: H. N. G Fernando, J., and L. B. de Selva, J.

SALLY M. J. MOHAMED, Appellant, and SYED M. S. MOHAMED, Respondent

S. C. 380/1960-D. C. Colombo, 43843/M

    Rent restriction-Joint assessment in 1941 of premises bearing separate assessment numbers-Separate assessments of the same premises in later years-Computation of standard rent-Meaning of term " rent "- Rent Restriction Act, ss. 4, 5(1), 13(1) (a).

.(i) In November 1941, premises Nos. 102 and 104 were assessed jointly with premises No. 100. In 1945 premises Nos. 102 and 104 were assessed together, but separately from premises No. 100. In 1955 separate assessments were made for each of the two premises Nos. 102 and 104.

Held, that, under section 5 (1) of the Rent Restriction Act, the standard rent of premises Nos. 102 and 104 was and is the amount of the assessment made for the premises jointly with premises No. 100 in November 1941, and that will remain unchanged, despite the separate assessments made in 1945 and 1955, unless the board in the exercise of the power given by the proviso introduces an alteration by fixing separate standard rents for the two numbers. In the absence of such a fixation by the board, the 1941 assessment still holds good, and the standard rent has to be calculated on that basis.

(ii) Where a lessee agrees to pay something more than the former rent if the Rent Control Board fixes a higher amount, the agreement cannot be regarded as an agreement to pay extra rent in respect of any period prior to the fixation of the higher rent by the board. But even assuming that the Common Law would regard it as an agreement to pay extra rent, the " rent " in the proviso to section 13 (1) of the Rent Restriction Act does not include any sum other than a rent pre-agreed between the parties.

APPEAL from a judgment of the District Court, Colombo.

H. V. Perera, Q. C., with Nimal Senanayake, for the Defendant-Appellant.

H. W. Jayewardene, Q. C., with M. T. M. Sivardeen, for the Plaintiff-Respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

November 28, 1962. H. N. G. FERNANDO, J.-

This was an action for the ejectment of the Defendant from certain premises which he had occupied as tenant from the year 1949. The first lease to hi? ceased on 31st July 1952, and the second lease was executed in June 1952 for a period of three years ending in July 1955. The rent provided for in the lease was Rs. 295.83. After the termination

of the lease the Defendant continued in occupation of the premises paying as rent the same amount of Rs. 295-83. It would appear from the correspondence that some time prior to the year 1957 the Plaintiff demanded a higher rent, namely sum of Rs. 524-33, and some explanation of this demand is necessary.

The premises in question bear assessment numbers 102 & 104, Second Cross Street, Pettah. As at November, 1941, these two premises, together with premises No. 100, Second Cross Street, were jointly assessed in a single assessment for the purpose of rates, the annual value of the three jointly assessed premises being Rs. 3,000, and the rates being Rs. 600 p.a. In 1945, however, Numbers 102 & 104 were assessed together, but separately from No. 100, the annual value then being Rs. 2,500, and the annual rates Rs. 500. It was apparently because of this valuation that the figure of Rs. 295'83 was fixed as rent, this amount being presumably the authorised rent in terms of section 4 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance. In 1955, however, Nos. 102 & 104 were assessed separately. In consequence the Plaintiff appears to have been advised that these separate assessments had the effect of changing the authorised rent in the following manner, that is to say, for No. 102 the authorised rent became Rs. 178-75, and for No. 104 it became Rs. 345-58. It was on this basis that he made the demand already mentioned for these two amounts in respect of the buildings separately assessed, making a total o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document